In this post, I’ll detail the major fault with a repeated item that I haven’t shown before, but first \u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026\u2026\u2026 let’s have a look at what else is repeated. In my September 25 dissection<\/a> of the Charleston v Brabham Oil<\/em> filing, I already noted how a dubious graph and\/or assertion from the Exxon-sourced “James Black Memo” in all the other filings is also in this Delaware<\/em> filing<\/a>. The worthless 1998 API “victory will be achieved” memo set makes its appearance on page 122 in this Delaware<\/em> filing<\/a>, using the same suspect unnamed weblink that I illustrated in my Honolulu v. Sunoco<\/em> dissection<\/a>, which showed how that unnamed source<\/a> is actually Kert Davies’ old 2013 document upload<\/a> when he worked at Greenpeace.<\/p>\n Then there’s ye olde<\/em> “reposition global warming” memos. Here is that repetition enslavement in this Delaware<\/em> filing, page 112, complete with its basically disingenuous ‘UCS dossier source’<\/a> \u2026<\/p>\n \u2026 and for emphasis, here’s that same repetition in the prior eleven Sher Edling filings all the way to the beginning, via screencapture photo links:<\/p>\n This gets really old after a while. But hey! When that’s the most damaging evidence there is, well, you stick with it and hope nobody asks anything about it. Where it originally came from<\/a>, why it wasn’t stashed where people say it was<\/a>, that sort of thing.<\/p>\n Now, lets have a look at an item that was brought to the attention of many, including me, in the WUWT guest post titled “State of Delaware Lies About Willie Soon (as a scientist)<\/a>.” It concerns the corruption accusation directed at Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon. First, starting from the beginning of these Sher Edling lawsuits, this is what the 2017 San Mateo v Exxon<\/em> says on its print page 58, along with the footnote sources:<\/p>\n A key strategy in Defendants\u2019 efforts to discredit scientific consensus on climate change and the IPCC was to bankroll scientists who<\/strong>, although accredited, held fringe opinions that were even more questionable given the sources of their research funding.<\/strong> These scientists obtained part or all of their research budget from Defendants directly or through Defendant-funded organizations like API,130<\/sup> but they frequently failed to disclose their fossil fuel industry underwriters.<\/strong>131<\/sup> Evil Defendants, who sneer about how this effort to “discredit scientific consensus on climate change and the IPCC<\/em>” victory will be achieved, while the evil scientists hid who the suppliers of their megabucks were. Oh, wait, Exxon couldn’t even figure out the status of that victory plan and API had no indication<\/a> it was ever implemented. And did Dr Soon actually hide who his funders were? Hold that thought for a few moments.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Sher Edling’s implication of corruption against Dr Soon was repeated identically in:<\/p>\n Identical wording each time about “bankrolling scientists” having “fringe opinions” that were “questionable given the sources of their research funding”, along with source links to Dr Soon’s co-authored paper in the journal Climate Research<\/em> and something from “Newsdesk, Smithsonian” (try clicking on that link). Since it’s tedious to screencapture and color-highlight these court filings, I’ll just direct readers to the individual pages for these repetitions in the complete online files for #7 Rhode Island v. Chevron<\/em> PDF file page 86<\/a>, #8 Baltimore v. BP<\/em> PDF file page 88<\/a>, #9 PCFFA v. Chevron<\/em> PDF file pages 63-64<\/a>, #10 Honolulu v. Sunoco<\/em> PDF file page 76<\/a>, and #11<\/strong> Charleston v Brabham Oil<\/em> PDF file pages 101-102<\/a>.<\/p>\n This unbroken repetition streak came to a – somewhat – end with Sher Edling’s month-old Delaware v. BP<\/em> lawsuit, which was filed only literally one day<\/em><\/strong> after<\/a> Sher Edling’s #11<\/strong> lawsuit’s 9\/9\/20 filing date<\/a>. It’s all still nearly identical, but notice what I highlight in orange in the screencapture of its PDF file page 131<\/a>:<\/p>\n Web.archive.org<\/a> is where people go to see web pages that have been taken offline, it’s called “The Internet Archive” or “Internet Way-back Machine.” In the time between<\/a> the last online capture the Internet Archive was able to get on March 4, 2020 and its next capture on September 1, 2020, the Smithsonian Institute restricted public access to their Newsdesk statement about Dr Soon<\/a>. Why? As seen from a system-wide search<\/a> of The Smithsonian’s website, no explanation is not offered anywhere within their system regarding that restriction. The most that pops up specifically for Dr Soon’s name<\/a> are three grabs of the times when the now-missing page was previously captured, and a June 2015 Newsdesk statement<\/a> about the controversial ‘undisclosed funding’ situation<\/a> in general. What are all these Sher Edling lawsuits relying on within that missing S.I. Newsdesk statement<\/a>?<\/p>\n The Smithsonian is conducting inquiries to address the allegations<\/strong> that Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon failed to disclose to journals the funding sources for his climate change research.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What was the June 2015 Smithsonian Newsdesk statement referring to regarding “recent allegations,” and what corresponds more directly to the now-missing February 26, 2015<\/strong> Smithsonian Statement about “addressing allegations”?<\/p>\n The February 21-23, 2015<\/strong> Boston Globe<\/em> \/ New York Times<\/em> \/ Washington Post<\/em> newspapers blitz against Dr Soon – best represented by the NYT<\/em><\/a> – containing a particular name that shouldn’t surprise anybody who is familiar with the smear of skeptic climate scientists:<\/p>\n \u2026 newly released documents<\/strong> show the extent to which Dr. Soon\u2019s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. At the time in February 2015, after the strange and unexplained departure of Kert Davies from Greenpeace, his sudden reemergence in the media blitz was a surprise enough to me that I wrote a GelbspanFiles blog post titled “Kert Davies is Back. Again<\/em>.<\/a>” The startup of his Climate Investigations Center website made no sense to me in 2014<\/a>, but my view changed upon my discovery of his related “Climate Files” website<\/a> and how that could apparently be used as a vehicle to supply global warming lawsuits with material<\/a> under a name that looks much more benign than one plagued with anti-fossil fuel industry bias like “Greenpeace.”<\/p>\n What is the major fault with the “$1.2 million” that all these Sher Edling lawsuits so desperately seem to allude to via their beloved “newsdesk.si.edu\/releases\/smithsonian-statement” link? Fundamentally, it prompts the overarching question of whether there’s any merit to the Kert Davies-sourced implication that such funding automatically equals a corrupt pay-for-performance, where Dr Soon spews disinformation meeting the approval of his funders. The overarching question arises from:<\/p>\n If the whole accusation effort aimed at Dr Soon was bulletproof, criticisms would be obviously desperate attempts to distract people away from the sight of clear-cut corruption, instead of offering detail points that can be either exposed as outright lies or not.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n If those critical points cannot be disputed, and thus decimate the accusation against Dr Soon, several more critical question arise: Did the Sher Edling law firm undertake basic due diligence to find out if the accusation was bulletproof? If the attorneys did not, are they qualified at all to be leading these global warming lawsuits? If they did, are they fully aware of how faulty the accusation really is, and how questionable the principal source for the accusation is, and is this knowledge being withheld from the plaintiffs in these lawsuits?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Washington Free Beacon has an ongoing series of “I forced a bot to \u2026” parodies making fun of predictable robot-like reactions from biased journalists or far-left activists to particular hot topics. Seriously, however, it might be worthy of genuine … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Delaware-reposit.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/SMCo-Soon.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n130<\/sup> Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years, Climate Research 23, 88-110 (January 31, 2003), http:\/\/www.int-res.com\/articles\/cr2003\/23\/c023p089.pdf<\/a>.
\n131<\/sup> Newsdesk, Smithsonian Statement: Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, Smithsonian (February 26, 2015), http:\/\/newsdesk.si.edu\/releases\/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/DelawareSoon.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/gelbspanfiles.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Smithson-allegations-Soon-1024x655.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nHe has accepted more than $1.2 million<\/strong> in money from the fossil-fuel industry<\/strong> over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest<\/strong> in most of his scientific papers. \u2026
\nThe documents were obtained by Greenpeace<\/strong> \u2026 Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.<\/strong> \u2026
\nWhat it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,\u201d said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center<\/strong>, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n